VST3 support continue

I do understand your desire to have this function now, but wouldn't you rather let a small team develop and make progress?   ...or do you want to engage their time in a discussion that won't get what you desire in X3 anyway?
 
I though Noel explained it in terms I even understand. There are a list of specs, they chose the main points to implement that would be what most folks would use, and made a roadmap to implement the rest next version.
 
Any more prodding is really making glue from the horse IMO.
 
Put in the feature request. Get others requesting it. Then you can have a strong case to vent if it is not implemented.

The thing is, Cakewalk should remove the claim that "VST3 support is now fully integrated across all versions of SONAR X3".
 
I realize it will take time to implement, but until then, there is only limited VST3 support.

I think the issue is the disconnect between these two sentences:
 
"VST3 support is now fully integrated across all versions of SONAR X3".
"I realize it will take time to implement, but until then, there is only limited VST3 support."
 
The claim is that all versions of SONAR X3 support VST3. This is true. If you load a VST3 plug-in, SONAR will recognize it.
 
The DEGREE of support of any spec varies according to manufacturer, unless that spec is a STANDARD (these are two different things and also factors into the confusion). A STANDARD sets out rigid, specific qualities that a piece of gear must address. For example with traffic lights, red = stop, green = go, and yellow = caution is a standard.
 
A specification is less rigorous. For example, in the United States, yellow is used only when transitioning from green to red. In Germany, yellow is used also when transitioning from red to green. Both support the use of color for traffic flow, but the way they support the use of color for traffic flow differs.
 
For music, the best-known and most common example of this is MIDI. The MIDI specification includes numerous features. No piece of gear in the entire universe implements all of them. None. Yet all MIDI gear claims to support MIDI. Whether they choose to support MIDI Show Control or polyphonic aftertouch is up to the manufacturer.
 
In the case of VST3, support is "bidirectional." For example SONAR might support an element in the VST3 spec that is not supported by a VST3 plug-in. Conversely, SONAR might not support an element in the VST3 spec that IS supported by a VST3 plug-in. Yet in both cases, SONAR and the plug-in support VST3. What is chosen to support or not support is up to the manufacturer.
 
This is why much MIDI gear includes a MIDI implementation chart that notates which functions are supported and which are not. I do not know whether such a standardized document has been released by Steinberg, who are the "keepers of the VST SDK," but if they had I think I would have seen it by now.
 
Keyboards are not referred to a "crippled" because they don't include, for example, polyphonic aftertouch or MIDI Show Control. To start choosing products selectively and decide that some are "crippled" because they don't support functions while other are not "crippled" even though they don't support the same functions is arbitrary at best. The question of supporting a specification, and the degree of supporting a specification, are different questions.
 
And the question of supporting a standard is a VERY different matter. This is why there are governing standards committees for organizations like the Audio Engineering Society and Consumer Electronics Association that define a standard with exceptional specificity, including which elements are optional because it is understood not all elements of a standard always have to be implemented. The same is true for specifications.

I noticed that the poster is from Slovakia and therefore English might not be his native language. So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; and as Alex noted, "implementation" and "integration" have very different meanings. Cakewalk phrased their statement properly, but that doesn't guarantee it can't be misinterpreted...especially when a non-native speaker needs to parse words that are not used in ordinary conversation. If I've explained these various words with sufficient clarity, that should end the reason for this thread.

Anderton
So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; 

I dont blame CW for not implementing this standard function yet, but I wonder why they are not going to implement it in some of the next X3 update. As I stated before it is not fair to pay twice for something that should be in VST3 in the first place. Sorry for this link, but Steinberg developed VST3 standard and you can clearly see what functions are considered as standard of VST3. http://www.steinberg.net/...technologies/vst3.html

You might be able to get the VST3 Standard from Steinberg for a price you wouldnt want to pay. On the other hand when you upgrade to X4 , the vst3 standard will probably be in there,but dont forget that the X4 will be a complete new Sonar with all the options of a DAW and fully improved. In saying that, you get what you pay for as far as USING Sonar. As far as ownership, cakewalk are the owners of Sonar and you are only a user. Sonar has upgraded at no cost 5 times at the expense of +/- 35 hard workers that are getting paid every month to develop this software to the point that you can use it.
You have a studio. Charge your customers a one time fee and then give them  for the next 5 songs they make FREE MIXING and see how far you get.
MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND !!!

BluerecordingStudios

Anderton
So, I thought it might be important to explain the difference between terms like specification and standard; 

I dont blame CW for not implementing this standard function yet, but I wonder why they are not going to implement it in some of the next X3 update.

 
You don't have to wonder: it depends on user demand, resources, and what else needs to be implemented. A vocal minority sometimes extrapolates their desires, and thinks the rest of the world has the same needs and priorities. It does not.
 

As I stated before it is not fair to pay twice for something that should be in VST3 in the first place. Sorry for this link, but Steinberg developed VST3 standard and you can clearly see what functions are considered as standard of VST3. http://www.steinberg.net/...technologies/vst3.html

 
Well, Cakewalk could have simply not integrated vST3 at all, and waited until they had the time, resources, and user demand to implement all elements of the spec. I, and I believe many others, would rather that Cakewalk implement what they could in light of the above constraints than implement nothing at all.
 
A CD can hold 74 minutes of music. Many bands release CDs with 45 or 50 minutes worth of music. I'd rather they do that than rush out more music just to fill those 74 minutes, or not spend time making the mixes they already have as good as possible because they feel they need to fill the time.

jscomposer
Excellent reply from Anderton (you have eased my concerns), thank you. As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

Careful, as Alex could serve you another link
 

CakeAlexS

jscomposer
As for Alex try and be a little more professional with your responses, thanks.

 
Oh sorry Sir, I shall try and do better next time ;).

A typical response, thanks. You guys should really take paying customers more serious.

More Whining
A typical response, thanks. You guys should really take paying customers more serious.

It's the paying customers not taking you serious.
The Cakemen were quite courteous and professional in their responses in answering this particular inquiry yet again.
Just because someone has the word 'cake' in their user name doesn't make them a Cakewalk employee.

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]
FYI - Cakewalk employees have the word "[Cakewalk]" in their name.

... but not everyone with the letters "c-a-k-e" in their user name is a Cakewalk employee.

Should change CakeAlexS account name to AlexS, save on the confusion, not the first time he's been mistaken for someone who is employed by you guys ;)

This is silly.  Alex hasn't tried to fool anyone and no one with a modicum of intelligence would ever make such a conclusion. 
 
The only members that might misinterpret are brand new ones that don't know what a CW employee looks like. But that would be cleared up soon enough. I don't believe people are that dense. They bought Sonar didn't they? That ought to prove they are smart! 

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]
Maybe he just really likes cake? :)
 

 
I don't blame him.
 
I think I'll change my name to "RubenChocolateCakeThePayingCustomer".  
 

It doesn't, but is entertaining nonetheless.